Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

There is a reason the Colts were willing to part with Marshall Faulk while he was still in his prime..........and that is Edge. Sorry Convo, but to say he is not an elite back is mind boggling to me. While Edge may benefit from the passing attack, the passing attack also benefits from the presence of James. Before Manning and Harrison became legendary, James was more heavily relied upon and put up some impressive numbers. And the Colts have never been known to have an outstanding run blocking offensive line.

And while I wouldn't put Edge on the same plateau as Barry Sanders. Likewise, I am not quite ready to put Reggie there either. Let him prove his worth in the NFL before drawing those lofty comparisons.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

December 15th, 2005, 7:04 pm

conversion02

RIP Killer

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pmPosts: 10863Location: Sycamore, IL

wjb21ndtown wrote:

That said, he would get over 100 a game in Seattle, NE, Jax, Carolina, ect.... RB's like Bush (elusive backs) can do more with less IMO.

I guess that's what I mean when I say "elite." Being able to do more with less.

______________________Draft defense - CB, LB, DT, LB...WR/KR

December 15th, 2005, 10:14 pm

conversion02

RIP Killer

Joined: January 26th, 2005, 9:34 pmPosts: 10863Location: Sycamore, IL

wjb21ndtown wrote:

That said, he would get over 100 a game in Seattle, NE, Jax, Carolina, ect.... RB's like Bush (elusive backs) can do more with less IMO.

I guess that's what I mean when I say "elite." Being able to do more with less. Maybe I'm just bitter from the whole Barry/Emmitt debate!

______________________Draft defense - CB, LB, DT, LB...WR/KR

December 15th, 2005, 10:15 pm

phunnypharm

#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 amPosts: 1427

Quote:

While I agree with most of what you're saying, I disagree that James is in the same league as Bush. Bush is just one of those guys...like Barry

First..........I never said that anything about Edge being EQUAL to Bush.

In fact, that debate has NOTHING to do with my point.

My whole point is that trading a 2nd rounder to get Edge last year and paying him similar (probably less) money compared to Bush is better than spending the #1 overall pick on Bush.......in terms of value to the organization.

I would say that I am in favor of trading down (FROM the top 5 especially!) in the 1st round 80% of the time.......for the reasons listed above.

Quote:

You might not be able to target a PARTICULAR position or player at #10-20........but there are STILL MANY GOOD PLAYERS available.

I look at it this way.

If I could get an extra DAY 1 pick every year by trading down......That would give my team 4-5 more players LIKELY to contribute at any given time (since rookie contracts often keep them with a team 4-5 years for 2-3 rounders).

PLUS........I would have EXTRA money left under the salary cap to SIGN/Re-sign free agents.........instead of having high draft picks eating up the cap room.

When it comes down to it.......there are really only 3 positions that are pretty hard to land a TOP level player at later in the draft.

OLT, DE, and QB.

And I only like taking a QB that is cleary above the talent level of the usual suspects. Peyton and Eli are the only 2 QBs I would have taken #1 overall in the last decade (I would have traded down even with Vick or Carson Palmer available). My theory is that a team is better off accumulating picks......and then using later picks to get QBs since it is a crapshoot anyway.

My strategy is based on looking at history.

Since the start of the salary-cap era about a decade ago.......only John Elway and Troy Aikman have won Super Bowls as highly drafted QBs playing with the same team since entering the NFL (I count Elway since he never played for Colts). But even they had great teams surrounding them that had GREAT RUSHING OFFENSES. Also, Aikman's team was assembled before the salary cap.......and then they all re-structured as far into the future as possible to prolong their success.

However......since the start of the salary cap era...........EVERY Super Bowl winner has a good rushing offense. And except for the Rams, most have had a very good defense (or DOMINANT.......like the last 5 years).

Therefore.......my keys to building a great team.

#1 --- Being able to run the ball. It all starts with the O-line.
#2 --- DEFENSE. The last 5 SB winners had GREAT D-lines.
#3 --- Depth. Very few Super Bowls are won by teams without capable back-ups.

If those 3 things are taken care of by trading down and commiting to building the trenches......instead of picking "saviors" in the top 5 every year........capable playmakers (QBs, WRs, RBs, LBs, safeties) can be found later in the draft or via free agency.

December 15th, 2005, 11:24 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

phunnypharm wrote:

I would say that I am in favor of trading down (FROM the top 5 especially!) in the 1st round 80% of the time.......for the reasons listed above.

I can understand your ideals, but it's not always a great idea. It would depend where your pick is, and who the willing trade partner is. Not too many teams are going to make a trade like Cleveland did in 2004.

phunnypharm wrote:

If I could get an extra DAY 1 pick every year by trading down......That would give my team 4-5 more players LIKELY to contribute at any given time (since rookie contracts often keep them with a team 4-5 years for 2-3 rounders).

High second round picks get either four or five year deals. Lower second round picks get 3-4 year deals. Third round picks typically get three year deals, unless they are a QB. They can sometimes swing four year deals.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

December 15th, 2005, 11:38 pm

phunnypharm

#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 amPosts: 1427

Code:

High second round picks get either four or five year deals. Lower second round picks get 3-4 year deals. Third round picks typically get three year deals, unless they are a QB. They can sometimes swing four year deals.[quote]

Yes......

and then they become a RFA for another year............which keeps day 1 picks in town for at least 4-5 years.[/quote]

December 16th, 2005, 9:04 am

phunnypharm

#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 amPosts: 1427

Quote:

I can understand your ideals, but it's not always a great idea. It would depend where your pick is, and who the willing trade partner is. Not too many teams are going to make a trade like Cleveland did in 2004

I'm not saying I would require a Cleveland-like trade. I would take a 3rd round pick to move down 2-4 spots from the top 5 in MOST years. In most years.......I think you could find a trade partner who would do this AND possibly throw in a future 4th rounder. Plus, the salary is so much lower outside the top 5 I think it is worth it.

Last year.......at #10.......I would have taken a 3rd rounder to move down 3-5 spots or a 3rd + 4th rounder (2006) to move 6-8 spots.
I think the best move would have been to try for a 4th rounder to flip flop with Dallas or San Diego.......or just to have drafted DeMarcus Ware and sell him to the higher bidder b/c EVERYONE KNEW the Cowgirls wanted him.

WHY?.......I thought the VALUE of the players was not much greater for the players we should have been pursuing. David Pollack, Erasmus James, Alex Barron, Heath Miller, Travis Johnson, or even Mark Clayton (IF we really NEEDED another 1st round WR ....lots of sarcasm) were available in the late teens (plus others)........they would have been cheaper (salary) and a better fit for our needs..........AND we could have had an extra mid-round pick that we SERIOUSLY needed.

EVEN BETTER YET

Since many weren't convinced that those players mentioned above were PERFECT fits for our schemes........or worries about attitude (Barron + Johnson)......or injuries (James)................we could have traded down yet again. Seattle got a 4th rounder to move down 3 spots to #26and the Lions traded a 4th rounder to move up 4 spots to #37 (Cody).

Two trades could have landed the Lions an extra 3rd AND 4th rounder (plus maybe a 2006 4th-5th rounder if lucky...........and we could have STILL been in the 1st round choosing between Heath Miller, OG/C Chris Spencer, OG David Baas, or FS Brodney Pool.........who were players that would have filled HUGE holes on our roster.disclaimer: Before ANYONE says hindsight is 20/20.......SlyBri19, WJB, and any others who previously posted on the other board can vouch for me and say I was (and always am) pulling for a trade down in round 1.

The extra picks could have been used to take a QB earlier, prevent having to trade away 2006 picks (like we did), fill in depth, or could have been traded away FOR EXTRA 2006 picks (like the Eagles and Patriots do).

EXAMPLE:
Eagles traded #132 (4th round) in 2005 + a 6th rounder in 2006........
and eventually netted TWO 4th rounders in 2006

I think MOST teams ask for the moon in draft-day trades.........so many teams aren't willing to make a deal. I am completely convinced the Lions could make a deal each year IF they didn't expect to commit ROBBERY like the Cleveland trade. And I'm also convinced that a pick in the #15-#30 range is not worth much less than a top 10 pick in most years.

December 16th, 2005, 10:04 am

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Phunny, I'm not saying that trading down isn't a good idea. I pulled for the Lions to trade down many times. I was positive they were going to trade down with either San Diego or KC last year when Derrick Johnson was still on the board. I had a gut feeling that the Lions weren't interested in him. Millen surprised me. His story that he had been trying to trade down the pick and had no takers was pure BS. There were other teams interested in Mike Williams, Shawne Merriman, Demarcus Ware.......I'm sure there was plenty of interest.

I wanted Millen to trade down in 2003 as well. I didn't think Rogers was going to be as good of a player as Andre Johnson. I'm sure Houston would have made a decent offer to move up one spot and get Rogers. They made it plainly clear that they coveted him. An extra third rounder or second rounder would have been very worth while. With an extra third rounder that year, the Lions could have taken TE Jason Witten (they should have taken him in that round anyways that year).

I agree that for the most part high first rounders don't make that much more of an impact than mid to late first rounders. But there are some that make HUGE impacts (Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, LT). That is why the draft is the biggest gamble in the world for teams. They are hoping their pick is that one in a thousand longshot superstar.

Come 2006, I will be voting for a trade down as well. Let's hope we get our wish.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

December 16th, 2005, 11:03 am

phunnypharm

#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 amPosts: 1427

Quote:

But there are some that make HUGE impacts (Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, LT).

I certainly agree that there are a few players that are worth the gamble.

Of those 4 you mentioned, I remember there being questions about Palmer because he had great success in only 1-year and it was w/ Norm Chow......who made Ty Detmer a college legend!

And LT didn't have everyone convinced either because he played at a non-BCS school (weaker competition) and his team ran the option....versus a pro-style running attack.

I'd say Peyton, Eli, Julius Peppers, Orlando Pace, Jon Ogden, Tony Boselli, and Alex Samuels would have been players I would have kept a top 5 pick for based on the position they play and the "overwhelming" belief that they were "can't miss prospects"........but I still would have entertained trades for anyone not named Manning.

Boselli had injuries, but was a Pro-bowler before his career was disrupted. Samuels has been good at times, but more inconsistent than scouts expected.........but I still think they were good picks at the time.

I also would have considered Champ Bailey as a top 5 pick since he was such a better athlete than the usual CB prospects.......but I would have gladly traded down (as the Redskins did) because everyone knew many of the QBs and RBs would be taken before Champ.........PLUS Chris McAllister was still on the board as well.

I just don't see how a team can go wrong when they trade down and get at least 1 extra first-day pick. Many people act surprised that the Eagles and Patriots have been able to sustain success after having to always draft at the end of round 1. The key is that they get good value. They aren't even afraid to trade down from round 1........and they are usually able to take a GOOD player that also fits a need at that point......instead of trying to fit a PARTICULAR player into their team because the fan base has been told by Mel Kiper-like people that the team should draft a highly RATED player. That's my take, anyway.

December 16th, 2005, 12:00 pm

wjb21ndtown

conversion02 wrote:

wjb21ndtown wrote:

That said, he would get over 100 a game in Seattle, NE, Jax, Carolina, ect.... RB's like Bush (elusive backs) can do more with less IMO.

I guess that's what I mean when I say "elite." Being able to do more with less.

Conversion... There is something to be said for a player that can succeed despite his team, but that doesn't always make one player better than the other. I think Bush could do more with less because he is more elusive than James, but I really think that James can do more with more (i.e. if you put James and Bush on the same team, a bad team, I think Bush would play better... I think if you put them both on the same team, a good team, James would play better).

December 16th, 2005, 4:54 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

phunnypharm wrote:

I just don't see how a team can go wrong when they trade down and get at least 1 extra first-day pick. Many people act surprised that the Eagles and Patriots have been able to sustain success after having to always draft at the end of round 1. The key is that they get good value. They aren't even afraid to trade down from round 1........and they are usually able to take a GOOD player that also fits a need at that point......instead of trying to fit a PARTICULAR player into their team because the fan base has been told by Mel Kiper-like people that the team should draft a highly RATED player. That's my take, anyway.

If every team felt the same way as you, there would never be any trading in the first 10 picks of round one. I understand what you are saying, but getting upset at the Lions not trading down may be wrong due to the fact that there may be no other teams wanting to move up that high.

In regards to the part about drafting good value, you're right. But I also believe that teams like the Pats draft good fit players rather than talent vaule. That is my criticism of Millen. He has been drafting individuals rather than pieces needed to complete the puzzle.

And as for Philly, their first round picks under Andy Reid have actually been really bad. Shawn Andrews, Jerome McDougle, Lito Sheppard, and Freddie Mitchell have either been busts or haven't produced like they were believed to be able to. Andrews was a particularly odd selection since the Eagles traded to move up in that round to get him and gave up a second rounder to do it. They could have stayed where they would and had gotten Chris Snee, who has clearly been the better player thus far.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

December 16th, 2005, 5:46 pm

phunnypharm

#1 Overall Pick

Joined: October 13th, 2005, 10:34 amPosts: 1427

Quote:

If every team felt the same way as you, there would never be any trading in the first 10 picks of round one. I understand what you are saying, but getting upset at the Lions not trading down may be wrong due to the fact that there may be no other teams wanting to move up that high.

That is the beauty of the whole concept!

MOST teams still think it is a GOOD idea to get the highest pick......and DON'T feel the same way!

Most teams think they can't get a good QB later in the 1st or 2nd round, so they gamble on an Alex Smith-like QB. Most teams get a stiffy over 1 particular player.....and they are willing to move up to get him......throwing a 3rd/4th rounder away like yesterday's newspaper.

It is my contention that MORE teams would be willing to trade up IF each team didn't ask for the moon. Most teams with top 10 picks REQUIRE a future #1 or a current #2 to move at all in the top 10. I'm saying they would be smart to accept less to make it happen.

Also, recent history shows that teams are willing to move in the top 10 spots. There has been 9 trades (on draft day) in the last 8 years involving top 10 picks.......and only 2 of those trades involved the top overall pick (Manning + Vick). There have only been 2 years out of the last 8 drafts when a trade didn't occur in the top 10. One year was 2000, when the Redskins and Ravens already both possessed 2 top 10 picks due to trades made BEFORE the draft. The other was the 2005 draft.......when no prospects really were considered blockbuster deal makers. However, I remember hearing/reading a lot of "discussions" were taking place......and probably didn't go through because the asking price was too high.

Quote:

And as for Philly, their first round picks under Andy Reid have actually been really bad. Shawn Andrews, Jerome McDougle, Lito Sheppard, and Freddie Mitchell have either been busts or haven't produced like they were believed to be able to. Andrews was a particularly odd selection since the Eagles traded to move up in that round to get him and gave up a second rounder to do it. They could have stayed where they would and had gotten Chris Snee, who has clearly been the better player thus far.

This is a great example of why I believe so much in my theory.

The Eagles, like every other team in the NFL, are not immune to selecting busts in the 1st round. However, they are still having success in the draft because they usually have more picks in rounds 2 through 4 than most teams. They have been able to find players that contribute as team players at RB, TE. LB, CB, S, and especially on special teams........so their 1st round busts really don't seem so obvious.

Also.......you're point about trading UP to get Shawn Andrews illustrates yet again that it is not wise to trade up in the draft..........yet so many teams fall for it. Like you said......they could have stayed put and got Chris Snee (Justin Smiley was there if Snee somehow had also been taken).......and they could have used the 2nd round pick they traded to draft Sean Locklear (who was taken in 3rd round) as insurance. As it turns out, Locklear is now starting on the Seahawks.....a top 3 NFL O-line.

I'm sure some will say........"hindsight is 20/20"

But I hear people say hindsight is 20/20 every year.........yet NFL teams continue to ignore the HISTORY that PROVES trading down almost always the best decision.